Some observations on the conduct of our foreign relations

I- ^^

1416
H8

UC-NRLF

$B 5T3 TIS

iUL 24 tq^

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF OUR
FOREIGN RELATIONS

By the honorable CHARLES E. HUGHES

[Reprinted from the American Journal of International Law
Vol. XVI, Number 3, July, 1922]

'%

h<6

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN

RELATIONS ^

By the Honorable Charles E. Hughes

Secretary of State of the United States

I desire to take this opportunity to present some observations on the con-
duct of our foreign relations, not to define particular poUcies, but to consider
method and control.

Recent developments abroad have marked the passing of the old diplo-
macy and the introduction of more direct and flexible methods responsive to
democratic sentiment. Peace-loving democracies have not been willing to
rest content with traditions and practices which failed to avert the great
catastrophe of the world war. Public criticism in some instances overshot
the mark and becoming emotional enjoyed the luxury of a bitter and indis-
criminate condemnation. The most skilled diplomats of Europe were
charged with having become "enmeshed in formulae and the jargon of diplo-
macy"; with having "ceased to be conscious of pregnant realities". More
potent than the critics were the exigencies due to the war^hich required the
constant contact and direct interchanges of respo:88BBJppc^rs. The after-
math of problems has made necessary the frequent ^m of similar methods
permitting concert, flexibility, more frequent infornifpij^ercourse, and de-
cisions which, if not immediate, are relatively speedy. The international

* conference attests the new effort to achieve the necessary adaptation to new
demands. An eminent chronicler of European conferences tells us that he
has attended over five hundred international meetings since 1914. There
has been a corresponding stirring in foreign offices, modifications of the old
technique and a new sense of responsibility to peoples.

It would be a shallow critic who would associate the United States with

, either the aims, the methods or the mistakes of the traditional diplomacy of
Europe. To her "primary interests", as Washington said, we had at best
"a very remote relation". We have had no part in the intrigues to main-
tain balance of power in Europe and no traditions of diplomatic caste. From
the outset — from the first efforts of Benjamin Franklin — American diplomacy
has deemed itself accountable to public opinion and has enjoyed the reputa-
tion of being candid and direct. It has opposed circumlocution and unneces-
sary ceremonial. Its treaties have been open to the world. Indeed, instead

1 Address at the Commencement of the University of Michigan, at Ann Arbor, on
Monday morning, June 19, 1922.

365

(;75850

366 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

of being burdened by the artificialities, reticences and intriguing devices of
an organization essentially aristocratic, instead of holding itself aloof from
the current influences of politics, the organization of our instrumentalities of

"foreign intercourse has rather suffered from too much regard for politicians
and too little attention to the necessity for special aptitude and training.
But, while we have thus been immune from most of the destructive criticism
visited upon old world methods, we also feel the pressure of a heightened
demand for popular control, and it is essential that we should carefully con-
sider the relation of public opinion to the conduct of our foreign relations, its
proper aims, the special dangers in this field if public opinion is unintelligent
or misdirected, and the conditions of the wholesome exercise of its authority.
In the sphere of international action, the people have peculiar obligations as
well as power, and education for citizenship implies a just appreciation of
civic responsibility when peoples are dealing with each other as peoples and
not merely determining domestic policy and settling internal disputes.

President Lowell has reminded us that, in asserting the final control of
public opinion in popular government, the opinion to which we refer must be
"pubUc" and must really be "opinion". It imports the conviction of the
people as a whole that the prevailing view expressed in the manner appro-
priate to our institutions should be carried out. It embraces deep-seated
convictions due to the influence of tradition, authority or suggestion. In
new conditions, where familiar standards are not involved, it is developed in
a rational process by consideration of what are supposed to be the facts of the
particular case.

It becomes at on^Papparent how difficult it is to develop true public
opinion in relation tcB|atters of foreign policy. There are, of course, certain
viewpoints of the An^ican people which are readily recognized, as they rep-
resent accepted postulates formulated and approved by generations of Ameri-
can statesmen and which could be changed only by a revolution of opinion.
But in a host of matters, indeed in most cases, there is no such criterion.
There are complicated states of fact which cannot be understood without an
intimate knowledge of historical background and a painstaking and discrimi-
nating analysis of material. There are situations of controlling importance
which are wholly unknown to the general public, and which cannot be appre-

• ciated without the special information available only to officers of the Gov-
ernment. The people cannot judge wisely without being informed, and the
problem is how to inform them. Lack of accurate information does not
imply any check upon the dissemination of what passes for fact or the with-
holding of comment or criticism however mistaken in its assumptions. The
multiplied facilities of communication are always in use, and the processes of
conjecture and suspicion go on uninterruptedly. In dealing with the prob-
lem of developing sound opinion, the fundamental consideration must
always be that misinformation is the public's worst enemy, more potent for
evil than all the conspiracies that are commonly feared.

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS 367

Moreover, the difficulty of maintaining a true perspective and a distinc- •
tively American opinion in the field of foreign affairs is greatly increased by
the natural and persistent efforts of numerous groups to bend American *
policy to the interest of particular peoples to whom tjiey are attached
by ties of kinship and sentiment. The conflicts of opinion and interest in
the old world are reproduced on our own soil. Then there are the various
sorts of propaganda by which organized minorities and special interests seek
to maintain a pervasive influence.

Whatever the advantages of our governmental arrangements — and I
should be the last to under-estimate them — I think it should be candidly
admitted that they have the effect of kmiting the opportunities for the re- •
sponsible discussion which aids in the understanding of foreign policy. The
conduct of foreign relations pertains,xo the executive power, and the execu-
tive power of the Nation is vested in the President, subject to the exceptions
and qualifications expressed in the Constitution. Practice under the Con-
stitution has abundantly confirmed the initiative of the President in the
formulation of foreign policy. •

The wisdom of this disposition of power has been fully demonstrated, for
in view of the nature of the task, the delicacy of the negotiations involved, the
necessity for promptness, flexibility and unity of control, this authority '
could not well be lodged elsewhere. But the separateness of the executive
power under our system, while it has advantages which have been deemed to
be of controlling importance, deprives the Executive of the opportunities,
open to parliamentary leaders, of participation in parliamentary debates. ,
Official communications are made by the President in the discharge of his
constitutional duty. The Department of State, which is the instrumentality
of the Executive in connection with foreign affairs, makes its public an-
nouncements. The Secretary of State appears before committees from time
to time and gives the information which is asked. But there is lacking thd_
direct personal relation to the discussions of the Senate when foreign affairsT ,
are under consideration. The Secretary of State, acting for the President,\
may negotiate an important treaty, but he has no opportunity to explain or
defend it upon the floor of the Senate when its provisions are under debate. •
The knowledge which is at his command is communicated in formal writing
or merely to those members who sit upon the appropriate committee. The
advantage of oral explication and of meeting each exigency as it arises in the
course of discussion and thus of aiding in the formation of public opinion in
the manner best adapted to that purpose is not open to him. There are
numerous situations in which an opportunity for the Executive through his
Department Chiefs to explain matters of policy would be of the greatest aid.
in securing an inteUigent judgment. As President Taft said, "Time and\_
time again debates have arisen in each House upon issues which the inf orma- j
tion of a particular Department Head would have enabled him, if present, to »
end at once by a simple explanation or statement". This is especially true

368 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

in relation to foreign affairs where the Department concerned has sources of
information which generally are not available to others.

I should not favor a change in the distribution of power or any modification
of practice which would encourage the notion that the Executive is responsi-
ble to the legislative branch of the Government in matters which under the
Constitution are exclusively of executive concern. I should also deplore any
method so contrived as to facilitate antagonism between the executive de-
partment and legislative leaders or which would merely provide opportunities
for the censorious. But speaking in my private capacity and expressing only
a personal opinion, I do believe in multiplying the facilities for appropriate
/jooperation between responsible leaders, who understand their respective
functions, in a manner suited to the full discussion of great international
questions when these fall within the constitutional competency of the Senate.
To enable Cabinet officers to vote in either House of Congress would require
a constitutional amendment and I should not favor it, but it is quite consist-
ent with our system that the Head of a Department should have the oppor-
tunity personally to be heard where important departmei;tal measures and
policies are under consideration. Indeed, the propriety of this method of
promoting a better understanding was recognized at the outset, and instead
of being foreign to our system it found for a time a place in our original pro-
cedure. You will remember that the long continued abstention from such
appearances followed the refusal of Congress in 1790 to hear Hamilton when
he desired to make in person his Report on the Public Credit. Mischiefs
will not be cured by methods which make misapprehension easy. Every
facility should be provided, consistent with our system, which will aid in
avoiding misconstruction, allaying suspicion and preventing unj ust aspersions .
The remedy for misunderstanding is explication and debate and the oppor-
tunity for thus informing the public judgment in a responsible manner should
not be curtailed by any unnecessary artificiality of method,
f The paramount importance of contact with the Press is fully recognized,
but in the nature of things, this contact for the most part must be informal.
Occasional public announcements are expected, but the representatives of
the press desire to write in their own way and to obtain material by their own
inquiries. What is desired is not control of news but accurate information.
To meet this demand, the President himself meets the correspondents twice
a week and Department Heads still more frequently. The Secretary of State
has two press conferences each working day at which either the Secretary or
the Under Secretary is present. The officers are not quoted, but there is
frank disclosure of facts and aims within the widest possible limits. There
is thus the most direct contact with those who are the principal purveyors of
information and the chief educators of the public. This is our substitute for
parliamentary interpellation. It is in this manner that, in substance, account
is rendered to the final authority.

But open diplomacy must still be diplomacy, and it cannot be open at the

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS 369

cost of losing its essential character and of frustrating its proper purposes.
By diplomacy, I mean the art of conducting negotiations with foreign Powers,
and when we refer, with suitable discrimination, to open diplomacy, we have
in mind the appropriate publication of international engagements, and, with
respect to negotiations, the absence of intrigue, the avoidance of unnecessary
secrecy, candor and directness. The diplomacy of the United States has
been, and is, open diplomacy.

The management of negotiations with foreign Powers, however, has its es-
sential conditions which relate (1) to the interest of one's own State; (2) to
the requirements of honorable intercourse between States; and (3) to the
maintenance of international good will. These conditions impose a measure
of reticence in the course of negotiations, with which the most high-minded
negotiators cannot afford to dispense. Thus Washington, maintaining the
right of the President to refuse information with respect to pending negotia-
tions when he deems its disclosure incompatible with the public interest, said :

The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution, and their success
must often depend on secrecy; and often when brought to a conclusion
a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions
which may have been proposed or contemplated would be extremely
impolitic; for this might have a pernicious influence on future negotia-
tions, or produce immediate inconvenience, perhaps danger and mis-
chief in relation to other powers.

Even the most democratic governments must desire to succeed in their
negotiations, and there is no reason why democracy should turn upon itself
and deprive its agents of its essential means of defense. Premature dis-
closures may prevent the accomplishment of the most enlightened aims, giv-
ing opportunity for the insidious efforts of selfish interests as well as favoring
opposition abroad. If both the peoples and governments concerned were
in complete accord, there would be no need for negotiations, and when they
are not in accord and are endeavoring to reach a basis of agreement, it is fatu-
ous to suppose that negotiations can be conducted without prudent reserva-
tions on each side. The observations that are sometimes made on this subject
seem to presuppose the existence of some dominant external authority which
can impose its will, whereas the peoples concerned are themselves sovereign,
and if they are not to resort to force, they must have opportunity to reach an
agreement mutually satisfactory. The wholesome pressure of world opinion
for peaceful solutions is quite consistent with such a conduct of negotiations
as will make peaceful solutions possible.

As the parties to the negotiations deal with each other upon the basis of
the equality of States, they must recognize the obligations of honorable inter-
course between equals. The confidence with which suggestions are received
must be respected. Each must be free to make tentative suggestions and
withdraw them. There must be opportunity for the informal discussion
which does not represent the final stand of governments, but reflects the

•

370 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

proper desire to ascertain to what extent there is accord and the state of mind
of each party to the controversy. It is an essential condition of intercourse
that representations made by one government to another or the publication
of the details of negotiations must rest upon the express or implied consent of
both parties. Any government that refuses to recognize this basis of inter-
course would find its opportunities for suitable adjustment of controversies
seriously impaired and its influence and prestige greatly diminished.

Moreover, the maintenance of international good-will during negotiations
is of vital importance. While it is assumed that democracies are peace-lov-
ing, it cannot be forgotten that the activities of democracies frequently make
it difficult to arrive at a good understanding. The press in each country, in
large measure, is likely to voice extreme demands and to resist accommoda-
tions. Often the pseudo-patriotic spirit is developed, most probably in the
interest of local politics, and efforts are made to prevent settlements by in-
flammatory appeals to passion in one or more of the countries concerned. It
is most desirable that such endeavors should not be facilitated by information
of mere proposals, arguments and tentative positions; by disclosures which at
the best, pending the efforts at adjustment, can but afford gUmpses of the
situation. At least we may appreciate the fact that peoples cannot deal
directly with peoples; that there must be agents of negotiation; and that
when these are selected as wisely as may be practicable, there must be a rea-
sonable freedom to enable them to secure results. They cannot adequately
perform their task under a fire of criticism or successfully conduct negotia-
tions which are practically taken out of their hands and directed by a
clamorous public.

With all these considerations, it remains true that there should be no
secrecy for its own sake; that general policies should be made clear; that par-
ticular aims should be appropriately disclosed; that there should be public
announcement of all proceedings to the extent consistent with the essential
requirements of negotiation; and that nothing should ever be done by our
■diplomatic agents which so far as its actual character is concerned could not
he publicly proclaimed and justified as being free from artifice and deception
and in full accord with American principles.

The attitude of the public toward foreign relations is almost as important
as the securing of adequate information; that is, there should be a suitable
appreciation of the objectives of diplomatic effort. There is, of course, the
fundamental matter of national security, and the instinct of self-preserva-
tion causes a quick response to any appeal on this score. Indeed, the danger
is not that the people will become indifferent to the essential conditions of
their security, or will lack information as to any policy or procedure which
actually threatens it, but that the endeavor will be made to frustrate peace-
ful settlements which are eminently judicious, and which really promote the
safety of the country, upon the ground that in some indirect way they will
diminish the opportunities for protection. We have had recent illustration

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS 371

of this. The need for enUghtenment, in this aspect of the matter, is with
respect to what really makes for national security.

However, in emphasizing the importance of public appreciation of the aims
of our diplomacy, I do not mean to imply that there is any great lack of
understanding or of support of our historic policies or of the economic inter-
ests, the protection of which has become more and more the object of diplo-
matic effort. It is rather my desire to emphasize the importance of peace
as the object of diplomacy, and the necessity of intelligent opinion, not merely
as to the desirability of peace as an abstract conception, but with respect
to the conditions that are essential to the maintenance of peace. With these
conditions public opinion should be deeply concerned. Attention has been
directed to formal institutions, to international agreements relating to the
maintenance of peace. But the fundamental fact is that, however well-de-
vised, these will be of little worth in the absence of that state of international
feeling which will promote amicable cooperation and permit the removal of
the causes of discord.

It must be remembered that only a small portion of the controversial
matters of great consequence, which are now engaging the attention of for-
eign offices, admit the application of juridical standards. They are matters
demanding not legal decisions but adjustments by mutual consent. It is not
simply the dispositions of old controversies that are needed, but understand-
ings with respect to new situations and novel enterprises. In this world of
intimate relations, you are likely to have either hostility or cooperation.
There is no artificial method by which adjustments can be reached in the
absence of a sincere desire for accord, and the cultivation of the spirit of
mutual friendliness is thus the primary consideration. Without it, even the
most direct contacts and the flexible arrangements of Conferences will be of
no avail.

The nation that can most easily settle its differences and promote its in-
terests, the nation that can look most hopefully for a recognition of its claims,
is the nation that by its reasonable and friendly disposition, its poise and
sense of justice, inspires confidence and wins esteem. Here we touch the
point where the authority of sound public opinion is most necessary. It
must frown upon the constant efforts to create suspicion, distrust and hatred.
There can be no assurance of peace, and few of the necessary and just settle-
ments which make for peace, in a world of hate. It should be recognized that
what is more necessary than formulas is a new sense of civic responsibility
in matters of international concern. The chief enemies of peace are those
who constantly indulge in the abuse of foreign peoples and their governments,
who asperse their motives and visit them with ridicule and insult. We resent
attacks upon American character and motives when they come from abroad
and we should remember that other peoples are quite as sensitive as ourselves.
Intercommunication is so easy that domestic discussions of foreign affairs are
not confined within the three-mile limit but are immediately published abroad

372 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

as indicative not of the sentiment of particular individuals, who may be of
little relative consequence, but as indicating the sentiments of our people.
It is in this way that peoples become separated by a mutual distrust, even
while their responsible agents of government are endeavoring to bring about
beneficial settlements and mutual confidence. The public-spirited and well-
informed American, the intelligent patriot, will approach all discussions of
foreign affairs with the full understanding that every reckless attack upon
foreign peoples and governments reacts upon his country's prestige, impairs
its influence, and to some degree threatens its peace. The principal difficulty
at this time in our conduct of foreign affairs is not with method, or organiza-
tion, or aims, but with the untruthful, prejudiced and inflammatory discus-
sions in which some of our citizens and certain portions of the press permit
themselves to indulge.

If there is to be less reticence in diplomacy, there must be, if not a greater
reticence, at least a keener sense of responsibility in the discussion of inter-
national questions. Open diplomacy and blatant and injudicious utterances
will not go well together. The corrective can only be found in that state of
the public mind which will unsparingly condemn and ostracize those who by
their base imputations imperil our friendly relations with other nations.

An intelligent attitude toward foreign affairs will also take account of the
essential instrumentalities of intercourse and of the importance of making
these as efficient as possible. The many millions of our people cannot con-
duct their foreign relations, and the inescapable conditions to which I have
adverted make it necessary that our people should have at their command
the most expert diplomatic organization. I shall not at this time review, as
I have had the privilege of doing recently, the requirements of our diplomatic
and consular service. I merely wish again to emphasize the point that intel-
ligent opinion will demand that there should be an opportunity for career in
this service which will draw to it as many as may be needed of the best of the
educated young manhood of the country. This is not in the interest of the
evelopment of a caste ; it is in the interest of the American people and public
opinion should demand it.

It is apparent that this attitude of the public mind, this instructed public
opinion, cannot be had save as it is produced by the conscious endeavor and
constant influence of men and women who have had the special advantages
of higher education. It is the interaction of the influences of the university
on the one hand and of the many schools of experience on the other, that
produces that clear, practical and intelligent view of affairs which we call the
dominant American opinion. With respect to matters the importance of
which is not immediately or generally perceived, where special study and
instruction are needed, it is especially the example and influence of those who
have had the advantage of college or university training that is imperatively
needed.

It is not my purpose to dwell upon ideals in American education further

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS 373

than to say that they may be open to the criticism of being too individuaHs-
tic. It goes without saying that a young American should be able to make
a living and should have every opportunity for vocational and technical
training. There is no question, of course, but that it is this training of the
individual which makes for the enrichment of society. And I am one of
those who believe that the cultivation of the spirit, that one may have life
more abundantly, is quite as important as the equipment which will enable
one to secure the primary necessities of food and shelter or the means of a
comfortable existence.

But along with the appropriate consideration of individual needs, there
should go a more definite appreciation of the necessity of meeting the de-
mands of training for citizenship. This implies adequate knowledge of our
institutions, of their development and actual working. It means more than
this in a world of new intimacies and perplexities. It means adequate knowl-
edge of other peoples, and for this purpose there is nothing to take the place
of the humanities, of the study of literature and history. When I speak of
the study of history, I do not mean a superficial review, but the earnest en-
deavor to understand the life of peoples, their problems and aspirations.
Nor is it simply or chiefly the history of a distant past that it is now most
important to know. It is recent history that is of first importance, with suffi-
cient acquaintance with the past to understand the happenings and the de-
velopments which have taken place in our own time. In our many years of
schooling how difficult it is to give to our young men and women the knowl-
edge that is worth while, which through a just and clear discernment will
properly relate them to the duties and opportunities of their generation!

There are those who view the dislocations caused by the war, the present
widespread impoverishment, the assaults and too frequent triumphs of
unreason, the controversies over superficialities and the ignoring of the causes
of distress and instability, with a feeling of hopelessness. But this is not the
end of the world; rather it is the beginning of a new era, a formative period
when it is the highest privilege to live and perform one's part. We need
young men and women who are profound students of these developments,
who are ready not only to grapple with the problems of our domestic life but
who understand the origin and course of international difficulties and con-
troversies and thus are able to take an intelligent and helpful part in forming
a sound public opinion which will control America's conduct of foreign affairs.
Above all we need the spirit of reasonableness which men and women of
good sense and culture may bring to public discussion, — that calm judgment
which proceeds from wide knowledge and keen insight.

Power and opportunity are yours. They are not confided to impersonal
institutions. What will you do with them? Our ultimate security and the
assurance of our progress will not be found in constitutions or statutes or
treaties or conferences, important as these may be, but in the self-respect
that will not permit abasement; in the national pride and just self-interest

374 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

that will not tolerate interference with independence ; in the spirit of helpful-
ness which seeks not alliances but honorable cooperation; in the love of jus-
tice which will not permit abuse of power and which scorns to profit by unjust
accusation; in the insistence upon the processes of reason by which alone we
can avoid the mistakes of prejudice; in the detestation of the demagogue and
all his works, the most dangerous enemy of the republic ; and in the sympathy
with the weak and oppressed and in the dominant sentiment of human
brotherhood through which we shall be able to reconcile our national aspira-
tions with the full performance of our duty to humanity.

14 DAY USE

RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
LOAN DEPT. 1

This book is due on the last date stamped below, or

on the date to which renewed.

Renewed books are subject to immediate recall.

3APR^59CB

gccy**/^^ < I

iVfAir 3 1959

REC'D UD

APR 24 1959

i

^fsiix^.'B- .js^2B'^"'"

x3Sj^.o.-°

,-««^

s^>'

\